Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #458413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-19 18:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-07-20 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 260 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:14 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 23:55 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 17:14 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 18:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-19 17:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 17:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 21:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 20:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Storage Unit <storage.unit@mailinator.com> - 2018-07-21 07:40 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 18:27 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:45 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 20:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 20:44 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:14 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 03:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:43 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:53 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 07:04 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:53 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:07 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:19 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:30 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:36 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:50 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 09:16 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-21 12:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-23 07:38 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 05:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:46 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-23 12:08 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 22:26 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-23 16:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 12:29 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:38 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 15:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 16:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 17:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 17:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 17:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:02 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:17 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 22:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 18:34 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 17:43 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 01:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:03 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Kompyler <kompyler@toke.com> - 2018-07-25 21:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 15:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 15:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-24 14:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 16:32 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-25 05:25 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 05:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 06:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 10:36 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 13:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 13:05 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:07 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:16 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:19 -0600
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 14:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-25 14:50 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 15:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 18:15 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 22:58 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:40 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 19:48 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:18 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 22:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-26 06:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-26 09:35 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-26 12:06 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 20:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-26 13:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 06:50 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 13:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 06:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 13:43 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 07:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 16:12 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 11:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-27 18:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 13:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 16:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-27 19:08 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:11 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 20:44 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 22:33 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 08:33 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:58 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-28 08:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 08:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 07:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 11:06 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:16 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:35 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 19:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:50 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-26 15:04 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 12:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:19 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:41 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:57 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-26 10:16 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:49 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 22:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:47 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:23 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 14:24 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-26 09:30 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 11:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-26 20:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 15:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 15:55 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:21 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:26 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:39 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:59 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:02 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 17:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:21 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:22 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> - 2018-07-25 20:27 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-25 17:20 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-23 18:17 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 00:57 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-23 23:00 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:54 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-23 18:19 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 20:32 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 19:26 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 12:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-24 20:09 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-24 09:36 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 07:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-24 15:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-24 13:00 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:25 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:31 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:39 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:07 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 11:10 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 11:12 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:42 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 12:15 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 11:12 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:56 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-21 16:00 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:42 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 00:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 18:24 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-07-20 07:46 -0400
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 13:11 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:06 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:35 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-07-20 20:42 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 21:18 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 06:15 -0700
chrisv is an Arse! Simon bar Sinister <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:44 -0700
chrisv is a naive socialist SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:03 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 12:54 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:01 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:13 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:13 -0700
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:29 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:36 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:48 -0500
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:52 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:07 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 20:54 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 16:04 +0000
Re: Less than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:09 -0700
Re: More than 1% care about Russia chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-20 10:17 -0500
Re: More than 1% care about Russia SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-07-20 15:49 +0000
Re: More than 1% care about Russia Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-07-20 13:14 -0700
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <845a2b1d-ba8c-4082-a03d-af1b7ed46913@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459240 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 7/24/18 12:48 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/24/18 11:49 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 7/24/18 11:12 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The investigation is still very, very early. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which is why no one should be alleging unquestionable guilt. We now live > >>>>> in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments equal guilt (Glasser > >>>>> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is currently no publicly available > >>>>> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > >>>>> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by listening > >>>>> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed crap by the media. > >>>> > >>>> You mean like the crap you spew non-stop... > >>> > >>> Said Snit to himself in the mirror. > >>> > >>> <https://medium.com/@jancovorstermyafibheart/10-ectopic-heartbeat-vagus-nerve-palpitations-tips-for-you-b8b2acd4dbbe> > >>> > >>> You've talked bout bloating, fainting, ghost pains, etc, the above is most likely your > >>> 'issue', Mr. Hypochondria. Doctors can't wait for fools like you to show up, and you > >>> like it because you get long term disability, thus enabling you to take food right off > >>> the table of people who actually need gov't assistance. > >> > >> Ah, you claim I am the one who does as you JUST did... pretending to > >> know more about my health than I and my doctors do. > > > > I'm not pretending anything, I'm noting, based on statistical fact, that is > > "most likely" your issue. > > Ah, your defense is you do not understand basic logic and statistics and > how to apply them to specific cases -- esp. cases you know very little > about. > > But even with such deep ignorance as your "defense", why make up stories > about me using government money to get my degrees? More wild ass > guessing on your part in an effort to get me to talk more about my > education and finances? > > > <C43B8CEC.B5EF8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > > > > For the stuff you've *claimed* you were diagnosed with, Pepcid wouldn't > > do squat to relieve the symptoms. You're a classic hypochondriac, some > > Dr. probably saw you coming from a mile away. > > See: there you go again... making crap up about me. You do this pretty > much non-stop. I sincerely think you are not able to help yourself... it > is a compulsion on your part. > > >>>>> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone doing it because > >>>>> there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. Worse, many of them will > >>>>> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a narcissitic > >>>>> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, *claims*) made > >>>>> against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. > >>>> > >>>> We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process > >>> > >>> Right... and we should taint jury pools with our media prior to that process, > >>> this makes all the sense in the world <eyeroll>. > >> > >> I note we should have the presumption of innocence > > > > You 'noted' more than that... > > The exact sentence you responded to: > > "We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process" > > > "We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process, > > but that does not mean OUTSIDE of the adjudication process we cannot > > look at evidence and conclude someone is ACTUALLY guilty of a crime. In > > fact, this is generally what happens in a court case, the prosecutors > > are saying the person is ACTUALLY guilty." - Snit > > > > Saying (alleging) someone *is* guilty and ACTUALLY proving it are two > > different things; it's the prosecutor's job to do both. For anyone other > > than a prosecutor to claim, as a fact, that someone *is* guilty without > > having the benefit of the judge to determine if the evidence in question > > was even legally obtained (as well as seeing that the evidentiary chain > > was maintained) and to check its veracity, is absurd. Were this not so, > > there'd be no need for a process. > > Are you suggesting you referenced what you were snipping? > > > You then 'noted': > > > > "This confused the hell out of you years ago and continues to do so now." - Snit > > Yes... and it did and it clearly still does. You confuse the ideas of > being ACTUALLY guilty of breaking the law with being FOUND GUILTY beyond > a reasonable doubt during an adjudication process (knowing you, you will > keep going on about your confusion, blaming me, and that will be > repeated... when I speak of "ACTUALLY GUILTY" just assume the "beyond a > reasonable doubt" part) > > > But only you are confused by this reality, thinking people know there are > > occasions where juries have been sequestered due to the wrecklessness > > of the media, especially problematic in high profile cases. > > Ah, you are making up claims about my views on the media and its > influence so you can avoid speaking of how you have confused being > ACTUALLY guilty and FOUND GUILTY... and have done so for years. You do > work to put me on the defensive when you know you are wrong. Fair enough. > > Remember the example I used and you ran from: > ----- > It is a fact you are guilty of harassment -- from what you say the > police even talked to you face-to-face about it. Nothing wrong with > noting that fact, even though it is unlikely to ever be adjudicated. > ----- > > You will ALWAYS run from this example... because it is such a good > example of how wrong you are. > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They > cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel > somehow superior by attacking the messenger. > > They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. > > <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308> Protected code is being built into Cinnamon. BTW, I've already proved that his use of "cult-like" to describe COLA denizens is denigrating, since he's likening them to grazing cows. Run a background investigation on Onion Knight and you will see that he was in the clink for a long time. I do not know what for. The probes can not go into that extent of specificity and legal lists apparently have to be subpoenaed. The entire burlesque is packed of unbelievable gaps and counts heavily on Onion Knight's 'many certificates' nonsense. - Curious how these posts are made? www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frpm7aFpjb5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459267 |
On 7/24/18 3:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:06:50 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/24/18 12:48 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 7/24/18 11:49 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/24/18 11:12 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The investigation is still very, very early.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why no one should be alleging unquestionable guilt. We now live
>>>>>>> in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments equal guilt (Glasser
>>>>>>> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is currently no publicly available
>>>>>>> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people
>>>>>>> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by listening
>>>>>>> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed crap by the media.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean like the crap you spew non-stop...
>>>>>
>>>>> Said Snit to himself in the mirror.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://medium.com/@jancovorstermyafibheart/10-ectopic-heartbeat-vagus-nerve-palpitations-tips-for-you-b8b2acd4dbbe>
>>>>>
>>>>> You've talked bout bloating, fainting, ghost pains, etc, the above is most likely your
>>>>> 'issue', Mr. Hypochondria. Doctors can't wait for fools like you to show up, and you
>>>>> like it because you get long term disability, thus enabling you to take food right off
>>>>> the table of people who actually need gov't assistance.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you claim I am the one who does as you JUST did... pretending to
>>>> know more about my health than I and my doctors do.
>>>
>>> I'm not pretending anything, I'm noting, based on statistical fact, that is
>>> "most likely" your issue.
>>
>> Ah, your defense is you do not understand basic logic and statistics and
>> how to apply them to specific cases -- esp. cases you know very little
>> about.
>>
>> But even with such deep ignorance as your "defense", why make up stories
>> about me using government money to get my degrees? More wild ass
>> guessing on your part in an effort to get me to talk more about my
>> education and finances?
>>
>>> <C43B8CEC.B5EF8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>
>>> For the stuff you've *claimed* you were diagnosed with, Pepcid wouldn't
>>> do squat to relieve the symptoms. You're a classic hypochondriac, some
>>> Dr. probably saw you coming from a mile away.
>>
>> See: there you go again... making crap up about me. You do this pretty
>> much non-stop. I sincerely think you are not able to help yourself... it
>> is a compulsion on your part.
>>
>>>>>>> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone doing it because
>>>>>>> there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. Worse, many of them will
>>>>>>> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a narcissitic
>>>>>>> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, *claims*) made
>>>>>>> against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process
>>>>>
>>>>> Right... and we should taint jury pools with our media prior to that process,
>>>>> this makes all the sense in the world <eyeroll>.
>>>>
>>>> I note we should have the presumption of innocence
>>>
>>> You 'noted' more than that...
>>
>> The exact sentence you responded to:
>>
>> "We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process"
>>
>>> "We should have a presumption of innocence in our adjudication process,
>>> but that does not mean OUTSIDE of the adjudication process we cannot
>>> look at evidence and conclude someone is ACTUALLY guilty of a crime. In
>>> fact, this is generally what happens in a court case, the prosecutors
>>> are saying the person is ACTUALLY guilty." - Snit
>>>
>>> Saying (alleging) someone *is* guilty and ACTUALLY proving it are two
>>> different things; it's the prosecutor's job to do both. For anyone other
>>> than a prosecutor to claim, as a fact, that someone *is* guilty without
>>> having the benefit of the judge to determine if the evidence in question
>>> was even legally obtained (as well as seeing that the evidentiary chain
>>> was maintained) and to check its veracity, is absurd. Were this not so,
>>> there'd be no need for a process.
>>
>> Are you suggesting you referenced what you were snipping?
>>
>>> You then 'noted':
>>>
>>> "This confused the hell out of you years ago and continues to do so now.." - Snit
>>
>> Yes... and it did and it clearly still does. You confuse the ideas of
>> being ACTUALLY guilty of breaking the law with being FOUND GUILTY beyond
>> a reasonable doubt during an adjudication process (knowing you, you will
>> keep going on about your confusion, blaming me, and that will be
>> repeated... when I speak of "ACTUALLY GUILTY" just assume the "beyond a
>> reasonable doubt" part)
>>
>>> But only you are confused by this reality, thinking people know there are
>>> occasions where juries have been sequestered due to the wrecklessness
>>> of the media, especially problematic in high profile cases.
>>
>> Ah, you are making up claims about my views on the media and its
>> influence so you can avoid speaking of how you have confused being
>> ACTUALLY guilty and FOUND GUILTY... and have done so for years. You do
>> work to put me on the defensive when you know you are wrong. Fair enough.
>>
>> Remember the example I used and you ran from:
>> -----
>> It is a fact you are guilty of harassment -- from what you say the
>> police even talked to you face-to-face about it. Nothing wrong with
>> noting that fact, even though it is unlikely to ever be adjudicated.
>> -----
>>
>> You will ALWAYS run from this example... because it is such a good
>> example of how wrong you are.
>>
>> --
>> Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
>> cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
>> somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
>>
>> They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
>
>
>
> Protected code is being built into Cinnamon. BTW, I've already proved that his use of "cult-like" to describe COLA denizens is denigrating, since he's likening them to grazing cows. Run a background investigation on Onion Knight and you will see that he was in the clink for a long time. I do not know what for. The probes can not go into that extent of specificity and legal lists apparently have to be subpoenaed. The entire burlesque is packed of unbelievable gaps and counts heavily on Onion Knight's 'many certificates' nonsense.
>
>
>
> -
> Curious how these posts are made? www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c
>
Steve Carroll:
-----
There is no bot, pathetic liar.
-----
LOL!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70f99558-8e64-4dd0-9b1d-1812e9235cd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459201 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > The investigation is still very, very early. > > Which is why no one should be alleging unquestionable guilt. When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > We now live > in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments equal guilt (Glasser > must be loving the hell outta it). That there is currently no publicly available > evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by listening > to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed crap by the media. It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion that someone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made fully available to the public before there's even been a trial to submit it... > > Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with > > them professionally to know this? > > This cuts both ways. Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is based in utter ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance > > > Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions, > > > not decisions based on facts and reasoning. > > > > Nope > > There is no question he has a valid point there as the > presumption of innocence has left the building for anyone > involved in the Trump campaign. But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever is perpetuating the same wrong. > >, you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. > > Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone > doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has been demonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since you're advocating for the principle of innocence as default, even though you're now appearing to be actually doing the opposite. > Worse, many of them will > argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a narcissitic > liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, *claims*) made > against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly attribute the acts. Particularly since this week's included a threat to revoke security clearances of political opponents. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-24 16:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pj89dn$qi4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459264 |
On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >> >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and complete bullshit." You: "The investigation is still very, very early." There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're confalting things. >> We now live> in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments >> equal guilt (Glasser> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is >> currently no publicly available >> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people >> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by >> listening> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed >> crap by the media. > It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion That was *my* point (even you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that someone plead guilty to collusion). > thatsomeone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made > fully available to the public before there's even been a trial tosubmit it... > >>> Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with >>> them professionally to know this? >> >> This cuts both ways. > > Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is > based in utter ignorance: How is what you just displayed not utter ignorance? RonB seems to be saying he hasn't seen anything that proves Trump engaged in collusion... which is a different thing than what you just did above. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance > > > >>>> Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions,> > >>>> > not decisions based on facts and reasoning.> >> > Nope >> >> There is no question he has a valid point there as the> presumption of >> innocence has left the building for anyone >> involved in the Trump campaign. > But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that > they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever > is perpetuating the same wrong. Notably, RonB said what he "thinks": "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that..." You, OTOH, said a "party has already plead guilty" to "collusion" (which was the context when you repleid). Who is more "wrong" here? I'd say that'd be you. >>> , you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. >> >> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone >> doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. > If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has > beendemonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since > you're > advocating for the principle of innocence as default, LOL! Nice try... but that was the "presumption of innocence"... and it *is* the default. > even though you'renow appearing to be actually doing the opposite. >> Worse, many of them will >> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a >> narcissitic >> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, *claims*) made >> against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. > > Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly > attribute the acts. Like you did at the top? So go ahead and show the "party" that has "plead guilty" to "collusion". > Particularly since this week's included a threatto revoke security > clearances of political opponents. It's not like anyone has a right to a security clearance; the only reason anyone still has one is based on a gov't belief that they may come in valuable down the road.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bd8ce41-20c6-46c1-8073-2d2f9ebabcd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459274 |
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > >> > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and > complete bullshit." > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." > > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're > confalting things. Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration with the Russians. As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically viewing the entire realm of criminal activities. > >> We now live in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments > >> equal guilt (Glasser> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is > >> currently no publicly available > >> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > >> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by > >> listening> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed > >> crap by the media. > > It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion > > That was *my* point (even you appear to have jumped to the conclusion > that someone plead guilty to collusion). False, because as already noted above, the scope of the investigation just isn't that narrow. That's why the argument advocating a shut down the investigation because they've not found collusion is invalid. > > thatsomeone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made > > fully available to the public before there's even been a trial to > > submit it... > > > >>> Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with > >>> them professionally to know this? > >> > >> This cuts both ways. > > > > Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is > > based in utter ignorance: > > How is what you just displayed not utter ignorance? Because RonB (and you) are clearly ignorant of very basic principles of information control: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)> ...which within the context of Government clearances is taught in training as "Need to Know": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know> > RonB seems to be > saying he hasn't seen anything that proves Trump engaged in > collusion... which is a different thing than what you just did above. Correct, it is a different thing. And that also includes the conclusions which are being drawn: RonB is trying to use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is a known logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Which is why I've already cited that: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance So do please _try_ to keep up, "Steve". > >>>> Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions,> > > >>>> > not decisions based on facts and reasoning.> >> > Nope > >> > >> There is no question he has a valid point there as the> presumption of > >> innocence has left the building for anyone > >> involved in the Trump campaign. > > But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that > > they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever > > is perpetuating the same wrong. > > Notably, RonB said what he "thinks": > > "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that..." > > You, OTOH, said a "party has already plead guilty" to "collusion" False. > (which was the context when you repleid). No, that's where your leap of logic has taken you, for I was referring to the investigation within its full scope, not restricted only to the question of Administration collusion. The "No Proof of Collusion" claim has been the rationalization attempt to try to curtail the investigation from being completed, even though the investigation has already been successful in its charter by making indictments (& securing guilty pleas) en route to its full & proper completion. > Who is more "wrong" here? I'd say that'd be you. Try getting your logic straight, then re-assess. To use a football analogy, you're trying to claim that Giants are going to beat the Jets, so you can step the game right now ... even though the current score in the first quarter is that the Jets are up by 14-0. > >>> , you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. > >> > >> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone > >> doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. > > If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has > > beendemonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since > > you're advocating for the principle of innocence as default, > > LOL! Nice try... but that was the "presumption of innocence"... and it > *is* the default. Those who have already plead guilty are, by definition, no longer innocent. > > even though you'renow appearing to be actually doing the opposite. > >> Worse, many of them will > >> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a > >> narcissitic > >> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, > >> *claims*) made against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. > > > > Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly > > attribute the acts. > > Like you did at the top? So go ahead and show the "party" that has > "plead guilty" to "collusion". That's a goalpost move on your part. > > Particularly since this week's included a threatto revoke security > > clearances of political opponents. > > It's not like anyone has a right to a security clearance; Not what was being said. > the only reason anyone still has one is based on a gov't belief > that they may come in valuable down the road. That's one rationale for why the current process works the way it does, but another is that it saves the government money. In either case, to revoke clearances solely as a politically motivated form of retaliation is an extremely dangerous precedent, particularly since standing law is that it is **illegal** to use politics & political affiliations/leanings to make hiring & firing decisions of career appointments: few people know that the Bush Jr Administration got caught doing this. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html> And over a hundred years ago, the Federal Government was reconfigured under the Pendleton Act to try to abolish the Spoils system: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act> ...and FWIW, under said Pendleton Act: "It also made it illegal to fire or demote government officials for political reasons..." The threatened act very well could be flat-out illegal. I'd not be too surprised to see a lawsuit come out of it. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d4eeda5-d525-421a-9bdc-ff4674420a69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459370 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:25:27 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > >> > > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one > > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > > > > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > > > > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and > > complete bullshit." > > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." > > > > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're > > confalting things. > > Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only > looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration > with the Russians. > > As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. > > And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the > last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically > viewing the entire realm of criminal activities. > > > > > >> We now live in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments > > >> equal guilt (Glasser> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is > > >> currently no publicly available > > >> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > > >> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by > > >> listening> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed > > >> crap by the media. > > > It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion > > > > That was *my* point (even you appear to have jumped to the conclusion > > that someone plead guilty to collusion). > > False, because as already noted above, the scope of the investigation > just isn't that narrow. That's why the argument advocating a shut down > the investigation because they've not found collusion is invalid. > > > > > thatsomeone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made > > > fully available to the public before there's even been a trial to > > > submit it... > > > > > >>> Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with > > >>> them professionally to know this? > > >> > > >> This cuts both ways. > > > > > > Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is > > > based in utter ignorance: > > > > How is what you just displayed not utter ignorance? > > Because RonB (and you) are clearly ignorant of very basic principles > of information control: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)> > > ...which within the context of Government clearances is taught > in training as "Need to Know": > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know> > > > RonB seems to be > > saying he hasn't seen anything that proves Trump engaged in > > collusion... which is a different thing than what you just did above. > > Correct, it is a different thing. And that also includes the > conclusions which are being drawn: RonB is trying to use the > absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is a known > logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Which is why > I've already cited that: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance > > So do please _try_ to keep up, "Steve". > > > > > >>>> Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions,> > > > >>>> > not decisions based on facts and reasoning.> >> > Nope > > >> > > >> There is no question he has a valid point there as the> presumption of > > >> innocence has left the building for anyone > > >> involved in the Trump campaign. > > > But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that > > > they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever > > > is perpetuating the same wrong. > > > > Notably, RonB said what he "thinks": > > > > "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that..." > > > > You, OTOH, said a "party has already plead guilty" to "collusion" > > False. > > > (which was the context when you repleid). > > No, that's where your leap of logic has taken you, for I was referring > to the investigation within its full scope, not restricted only to the > question of Administration collusion. The "No Proof of Collusion" claim > has been the rationalization attempt to try to curtail the investigation > from being completed, even though the investigation has already been > successful in its charter by making indictments (& securing guilty pleas) > en route to its full & proper completion. > > > Who is more "wrong" here? I'd say that'd be you. > > Try getting your logic straight, then re-assess. > > To use a football analogy, you're trying to claim that Giants are going > to beat the Jets, so you can step the game right now ... even though the > current score in the first quarter is that the Jets are up by 14-0. > > > > > >>> , you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. > > >> > > >> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone > > >> doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. > > > If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has > > > beendemonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since > > > you're advocating for the principle of innocence as default, > > > > LOL! Nice try... but that was the "presumption of innocence"... and it > > *is* the default. > > Those who have already plead guilty are, by definition, no longer innocent. > > > > > > even though you'renow appearing to be actually doing the opposite. > > >> Worse, many of them will > > >> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a > > >> narcissitic > > >> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, > > >> *claims*) made against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. > > > > > > Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly > > > attribute the acts. > > > > Like you did at the top? So go ahead and show the "party" that has > > "plead guilty" to "collusion". > > That's a goalpost move on your part. > > > > > Particularly since this week's included a threatto revoke security > > > clearances of political opponents. > > > > It's not like anyone has a right to a security clearance; > > Not what was being said. > > > the only reason anyone still has one is based on a gov't belief > > that they may come in valuable down the road. > > That's one rationale for why the current process works the way > it does, but another is that it saves the government money. > > In either case, to revoke clearances solely as a politically > motivated form of retaliation is an extremely dangerous precedent, > particularly since standing law is that it is **illegal** to use > politics & political affiliations/leanings to make hiring & firing > decisions of career appointments: few people know that the Bush Jr > Administration got caught doing this. > > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html> > > And over a hundred years ago, the Federal Government was reconfigured > under the Pendleton Act to try to abolish the Spoils system: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act> > > ...and FWIW, under said Pendleton Act: > > "It also made it illegal to fire or demote government officials for > political reasons..." > > The threatened act very well could be flat-out illegal. I'd not > be too surprised to see a lawsuit come out of it. > > > -hh Yup. Of course this is what we have to deal with. People who obviously have no reason for being here other than to upset me. When I got here, I wanted to be equitable and unaffected by herd views. I gave Klaus Schadenfreude more than a reasonable person should. I am not going to play like Chris Ahlstrom didn't get me out of a tight spot on my network and I appreciate his time. Klaus Schadenfreude has my example to study and might start to at least pretend he is no longer complete ignorant from here on ;) Chris Ahlstrom can create a virtual machine. Of course that is not possible on anything but Linux! I just configured an automation and won't be bothered by the posts. Klaus Schadenfreude's crap has made a veritable ruin of COLA via Google Groups, so I don't endeavor trolling the group with my desktop anymore. One thing he has done with this behavior though is that the Klaus Schadenfreude filter will forever stay. - Puppy Videos!! http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_f8h9lv_-OPEN-WEBCAM---START-RECORD-- http://www.5z8.info/titstitstitstits_j7t4bl_stalin Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <136b71ac-73f1-4eec-abf0-1558264daf88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459375 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:41:45 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 5:25:27 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > > > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one > > > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > > > > > > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > > > > > > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and > > > complete bullshit." > > > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." > > > > > > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're > > > confalting things. > > > > Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only > > looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration > > with the Russians. > > > > As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. > > > > And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the > > last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically > > viewing the entire realm of criminal activities. > > > > > > > > > >> We now live in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments > > > >> equal guilt (Glasser> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is > > > >> currently no publicly available > > > >> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > > > >> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by > > > >> listening> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed > > > >> crap by the media. > > > > It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion > > > > > > That was *my* point (even you appear to have jumped to the conclusion > > > that someone plead guilty to collusion). > > > > False, because as already noted above, the scope of the investigation > > just isn't that narrow. That's why the argument advocating a shut down > > the investigation because they've not found collusion is invalid. > > > > > > > > thatsomeone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made > > > > fully available to the public before there's even been a trial to > > > > submit it... > > > > > > > >>> Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with > > > >>> them professionally to know this? > > > >> > > > >> This cuts both ways. > > > > > > > > Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is > > > > based in utter ignorance: > > > > > > How is what you just displayed not utter ignorance? > > > > Because RonB (and you) are clearly ignorant of very basic principles > > of information control: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)> > > > > ...which within the context of Government clearances is taught > > in training as "Need to Know": > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_to_know> > > > > > RonB seems to be > > > saying he hasn't seen anything that proves Trump engaged in > > > collusion... which is a different thing than what you just did above. > > > > Correct, it is a different thing. And that also includes the > > conclusions which are being drawn: RonB is trying to use the > > absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is a known > > logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Which is why > > I've already cited that: > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance > > > > So do please _try_ to keep up, "Steve". > > > > > > > > > >>>> Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions,> > > > > >>>> > not decisions based on facts and reasoning.> >> > Nope > > > >> > > > >> There is no question he has a valid point there as the> presumption of > > > >> innocence has left the building for anyone > > > >> involved in the Trump campaign. > > > > But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that > > > > they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever > > > > is perpetuating the same wrong. > > > > > > Notably, RonB said what he "thinks": > > > > > > "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that..." > > > > > > You, OTOH, said a "party has already plead guilty" to "collusion" > > > > False. > > > > > (which was the context when you repleid). > > > > No, that's where your leap of logic has taken you, for I was referring > > to the investigation within its full scope, not restricted only to the > > question of Administration collusion. The "No Proof of Collusion" claim > > has been the rationalization attempt to try to curtail the investigation > > from being completed, even though the investigation has already been > > successful in its charter by making indictments (& securing guilty pleas) > > en route to its full & proper completion. > > > > > Who is more "wrong" here? I'd say that'd be you. > > > > Try getting your logic straight, then re-assess. > > > > To use a football analogy, you're trying to claim that Giants are going > > to beat the Jets, so you can step the game right now ... even though the > > current score in the first quarter is that the Jets are up by 14-0. > > > > > > > > > >>> , you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. > > > >> > > > >> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone > > > >> doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. > > > > If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has > > > > beendemonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since > > > > you're advocating for the principle of innocence as default, > > > > > > LOL! Nice try... but that was the "presumption of innocence"... and it > > > *is* the default. > > > > Those who have already plead guilty are, by definition, no longer innocent. > > > > > > > > > > even though you'renow appearing to be actually doing the opposite. > > > >> Worse, many of them will > > > >> argue *against* the presumption of innocence. Just because Trump is a > > > >> narcissitic > > > >> liar doesn't mean he isn't innocent of the claims (not charges, > > > >> *claims*) made against him. It's like we're reliving the McCarthy era. > > > > > > > > Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly > > > > attribute the acts. > > > > > > Like you did at the top? So go ahead and show the "party" that has > > > "plead guilty" to "collusion". > > > > That's a goalpost move on your part. > > > > > > > > Particularly since this week's included a threatto revoke security > > > > clearances of political opponents. > > > > > > It's not like anyone has a right to a security clearance; > > > > Not what was being said. > > > > > the only reason anyone still has one is based on a gov't belief > > > that they may come in valuable down the road. > > > > That's one rationale for why the current process works the way > > it does, but another is that it saves the government money. > > > > In either case, to revoke clearances solely as a politically > > motivated form of retaliation is an extremely dangerous precedent, > > particularly since standing law is that it is **illegal** to use > > politics & political affiliations/leanings to make hiring & firing > > decisions of career appointments: few people know that the Bush Jr > > Administration got caught doing this. > > > > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html> > > > > And over a hundred years ago, the Federal Government was reconfigured > > under the Pendleton Act to try to abolish the Spoils system: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act> > > > > ...and FWIW, under said Pendleton Act: > > > > "It also made it illegal to fire or demote government officials for > > political reasons..." > > > > The threatened act very well could be flat-out illegal. I'd not > > be too surprised to see a lawsuit come out of it. > > > > > > -hh > > > > Yup. Of course this is what we have to deal with. People who obviously have no reason for being here other than to upset me. When I got here, I wanted to be equitable and unaffected by herd views. I gave Klaus Schadenfreude more than a reasonable person should. I am not going to play like Chris Ahlstrom didn't get me out of a tight spot on my network and I appreciate his time. Klaus Schadenfreude has my example to study and might start to at least pretend he is no longer complete ignorant from here on ;) Chris Ahlstrom can create a virtual machine. Of course that is not possible on anything but Linux! > > I just configured an automation and won't be bothered by the posts. Klaus Schadenfreude's crap has made a veritable ruin of COLA via Google Groups, so I don't endeavor trolling the group with my desktop anymore. One thing he has done with this behavior though is that the Klaus Schadenfreude filter will forever stay. > > > > - > Puppy Videos!! > http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_f8h9lv_-OPEN-WEBCAM---START-RECORD-- > http://www.5z8.info/titstitstitstits_j7t4bl_stalin > Jonas Eklundh Communication AB -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <328ae2c8-12e1-4830-b455-53187a4bc309@googlegroups.com>, Steve Carroll wrote: > > Sandman: > > <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood> It doesn't show what > > interval the script is run at, but how he has used it, at least in > > the beginning. I stopped logging it this way back in may :) > > From what I've personally looked at, it looks like it's all over the > map. Yes, with obvious scripted sessions. Not saying some of it isn't manual. > > Sandman: > > Maybe I'll update it :) > > What would it take to do that? For "later" to occur! <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding> That's a running tally of Snit's non-sock posts and his flooding during the last month. It'll update automatically and always show the last two months. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZyKjaAAoJECFEwfBaA+jR4QEIAIWE3GfOGnnxynLfUhRnWv+l OkvAvQ8GofGI1JjIOn7NnlyfGRV/JPiIzJmzoCrdV6uY9E9qaYOXScF4M5Vas4bv 2WqBlNIh7se9g6Zkj330L12RkuZckS5l0nJ++OTbmztOzLtAlrWKHADTiJ9u8JnR BCjcAhMrjQ0Jwut34hJr57pzj7p88oYCPP46IcrEMbWnd03n43BGUVLGr9i9pYU+ 7F6867hOzaFJ4DdRE52zv15yIYVUIHx7HFNNtV7ZfPRBRQQuyA403S8PM1RC/nQ/ RKau+ma21bzltpxlqTO+XAXMMLLZiGXy8hbv4Ib/tPlc5cKI3P6UDZ4exbbCmnE= =1Dqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- What Every Entrepreneur Must Know!! http://www.5z8.info/stalin-will-rise-again_j3h5uj_nakedgrandmas.jpg http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa95f1c2-e1b0-4c5e-95a5-44ef4dabe5ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459370 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > >> > > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one > > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > > > > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > > > > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and > > complete bullshit." > > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." > > > > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're > > confalting things. > > Incorrect So cite this collusion law, then, and name this "party" who "plead guilty" to it. > > >> We now live in an atmosphere where search warrants and indictments > > >> equal guilt (Glasser> must be loving the hell outta it). That there is > > >> currently no publicly available > > >> evidence doesn't mean anyone is innocent, but it also means that the people > > >> involved are still presumed to be so. One would never know that by > > >> listening> to the 'Snit' on the street, who is constantly force fed > > >> crap by the media. > > > It is equally ridiculous to see people jump to a conclusion > > > > That was *my* point (even you appear to have jumped to the conclusion > > that someone plead guilty to collusion). > > False, because as already noted above, the scope of the investigation > just isn't that narrow. Irrelevant to the context you responded to and what you twisted. > > > thatsomeone MUST be innocent because the evidence hasn't been made > > > fully available to the public before there's even been a trial to > > > submit it... > > > > > >>> Oh, so you’ve had a Security clearance and have worked with > > >>> them professionally to know this? > > >> > > >> This cuts both ways. > > > > > > Sure does, but the point is that RonB's claim is one that is > > > based in utter ignorance: > > > > How is what you just displayed not utter ignorance? > > Because RonB (and you) are clearly ignorant of very basic principles > of information control: Another red herring from the guy who couldn't comprehend what he'd read. > > RonB seems to be > > saying he hasn't seen anything that proves Trump engaged in > > collusion... which is a different thing than what you just did above. > > Correct, it is a different thing. And that also includes the > conclusions which are being drawn: RonB is trying to use the > absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is a known > logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance RonB said what he "thinks", you dishonestly labeled that as a "claim". Who is more "wrong" here? Looks like you are. > > >>>> Their goal is to get gullible Americans to make emotional decisions,> > > > >>>> > not decisions based on facts and reasoning.> >> > Nope > > >> > > >> There is no question he has a valid point there as the> presumption of > > >> innocence has left the building for anyone > > >> involved in the Trump campaign. > > > But for him to then try to single out an entity and claim that > > > they've had illegal/malicious conduct with NO proof whatsoever > > > is perpetuating the same wrong. > > > > Notably, RonB said what he "thinks": > > > > "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that..." > > > > You, OTOH, said a "party has already plead guilty" to "collusion" > > False. LOL! That is a direct quote from RonB. Your immediate reply to me was: "When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable." > > (which was the context when you repleid). > > No, that's where your leap of logic has taken you, for I was referring > to the investigation within its full scope LOL! You completely tossed out the context of RonB's thought, as you dishonestly mislabeled it, and you have the nerve to call it *my* leap? >, not restricted only to the > question of Administration collusion. But "collusion" was the context you responded and, last I saw, people are still allowed to "think" without someone falsely stating their thought is a "claim". > Try getting your logic straight, then re-assess. Try reading for context with comprehension. "collusion" "think" > > >>> , you’ve got them conflated with used car salesmen & politicians. > > >> > > >> Looks to be the other way around and you can easily spot anyone > > >> doing it because there is no presumption of innocence in their arguments. > > > If true, then you'll be able to cite statistics where this has > > > beendemonstrated to be their regular behavior. Particularly since > > > you're advocating for the principle of innocence as default, > > > > LOL! Nice try... but that was the "presumption of innocence"... and it > > *is* the default. > > Those who have already plead guilty are, by definition, no longer innocent. Irrelevant. You just alluded to the idea that a "presumption of innocence" is not the default. You've now been corrected on that. FWIW, I *am* advocating for a "presumption of innocence" as the default, and, for future reference, it's nice to see those in the group who apparently oppose it do so openly (which, at present, consists of you and Snit... should be a clue). (cue up bloviating BS by hh, to which I'll reply: Then why mention it?!) > > > Oh, we are starting to relive McCarthy, but one does need to correctly > > > attribute the acts. > > > > Like you did at the top? So go ahead and show the "party" that has > > "plead guilty" to "collusion". > > That's a goalpost move on your part. That's a 'noting of reality' move on my part, you're the one with the post around his neck. > > > Particularly since this week's included a threatto revoke security > > > clearances of political opponents. > > > > It's not like anyone has a right to a security clearance; > > Not what was being said. (here, I'll actually ask it) So why mention it? Can't be partisan politics <eyeroll>. > > the only reason anyone still has one is based on a gov't belief > > that they may come in valuable down the road. > > That's one rationale That's the *only* rationale. > for why the current process works the way > it does, but another is that it saves the government money. Raising security risks to save cancellation fees. LOL! Are you at Snit's house sharing his stash with him? > In either case, to revoke clearances solely as a politically > motivated form of retaliation is an extremely dangerous precedent, Given those in question, I doubt there'll be a problem. Bottom line: RonB said what he "thinks" about "collusion", those things are the context of what you responded to. If you didn't mean to convey what you did convey, you should have written more clearly. Now, you should recognize you didn't do so and man up. You're pulling a Snit by blaming the reader. But far worse, you took a 'thought' RonB voiced and dishonestly labeled it a "claim". Again, that's Snit territory, you *really* wanna go there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frrv1iFaoj0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459397 |
On 7/25/18 10:36 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... > Irrelevant. You just alluded to the idea that a "presumption of innocence" > is not the default. You've now been corrected on that. > > FWIW, I *am* advocating for a "presumption of innocence" as the default, and, > for future reference, it's nice to see those in the group who apparently oppose > it do so openly (which, at present, consists of you and Snit... should be a clue). Ah, so you do not think I am guilty of the things you accuse me of... and that I should be presumed innocent. Good. And you think Bill Clinton should be presumed innocent of the things he was tried for and NOT found guilty of. Carroll flip flops in 3... 2... 1... Wait. What will his excuse be? Ah, with me it will be that because he obsessively scavenged and forged quotes from NOT me this somehow proves something about me. You see, Carroll, the basic idea of logic is foreign to you. ... > Given those in question, I doubt there'll be a problem. > > Bottom line: > RonB said what he "thinks" about "collusion", those things are the context of > what you responded to. If you didn't mean to convey what you did convey, you > should have written more clearly. Now, you should recognize you didn't do so > and man up. You're pulling a Snit by blaming the reader. But far worse, you took > a 'thought' RonB voiced and dishonestly labeled it a "claim". Again, that's Snit > territory, you *really* wanna go there? You deem me guilty of "blaming the reader", whatever that means... but you offer no quote of my doing as you deem me guilty of, no less any sign of legal adjudication on the subject. Meanwhile, where you might not have been found guilty in a court for your harassment, you have had the police speak to you about it and how it is not appropriate nor legal for you to engage in such harassment. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23a878fc-309c-4b61-ae60-71d821c9372a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459411 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 7/25/18 10:36 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > > Irrelevant. You just alluded to the idea that a "presumption of innocence" > > is not the default. You've now been corrected on that. > > > > FWIW, I *am* advocating for a "presumption of innocence" as the default, and, > > for future reference, it's nice to see those in the group who apparently oppose > > it do so openly (which, at present, consists of you and Snit... should be a clue). > > Ah, so you do not think I am guilty of the things you accuse me of... > and that I should be presumed innocent. When the facts prove you aren't innocent, such as in your case, presumption no longer applies. For examples, I proved that you admitted you've forged me as far back as the early 2000s. You denied it. I proved that you admitted to being 'sigmond' (several admission, in fact), and you still denied it. You even deny your own admissions so your word is disqualified. > Good. And you think Bill Clinton > should be presumed innocent of the things he was tried for and NOT found > guilty of. Clinton plead out. He also admitted his guilt, which was part of his plea... as I've told you before. > Carroll flip flops in 3... 2... 1... Translation: Snit know the facts support me. > > Given those in question, I doubt there'll be a problem. > > > > Bottom line: > > RonB said what he "thinks" about "collusion", those things are the context of > > what you responded to. If you didn't mean to convey what you did convey, you > > should have written more clearly. Now, you should recognize you didn't do so > > and man up. You're pulling a Snit by blaming the reader. But far worse, you took > > a 'thought' RonB voiced and dishonestly labeled it a "claim". Again, that's Snit > > territory, you *really* wanna go there? > > You deem me guilty of "blaming the reader", whatever that means... Well, you do it all the time, but here, I'm talking with Hugh. (you don't have that identity thing going again, do you? ;) > but you offer no quote of my doing People have quoted you often, me included... you dishonestly deny, even to the point of denying your own admissions. Thats a real problem, for you ;) > as you deem me guilty of, no less any > sign of legal adjudication on the subject. LOL! You're confused... I just reiterated that the 'jury' in your case is usenet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frs3fsFbmkoU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459441 |
On 7/25/18 1:00 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 7/25/18 10:36 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>> Irrelevant. You just alluded to the idea that a "presumption of innocence" >>> is not the default. You've now been corrected on that. >>> >>> FWIW, I *am* advocating for a "presumption of innocence" as the default, and, >>> for future reference, it's nice to see those in the group who apparently oppose >>> it do so openly (which, at present, consists of you and Snit... should be a clue). >> >> Ah, so you do not think I am guilty of the things you accuse me of... >> and that I should be presumed innocent. > > When the facts prove you aren't innocent, such as in your case, presumption > no longer applies. For examples, I proved that you admitted you've forged me > as far back as the early 2000s. You denied it. I proved that you admitted to > being 'sigmond' (several admission, in fact), and you still denied it. You even > deny your own admissions so your word is disqualified. > >> Good. And you think Bill Clinton >> should be presumed innocent of the things he was tried for and NOT found >> guilty of. > > Clinton plead out. He also admitted his guilt, which was part of his plea... > as I've told you before. > >> Carroll flip flops in 3... 2... 1... > > Translation: Snit know the facts support me. > >>> Given those in question, I doubt there'll be a problem. >>> >>> Bottom line: >>> RonB said what he "thinks" about "collusion", those things are the context of >>> what you responded to. If you didn't mean to convey what you did convey, you >>> should have written more clearly. Now, you should recognize you didn't do so >>> and man up. You're pulling a Snit by blaming the reader. But far worse, you took >>> a 'thought' RonB voiced and dishonestly labeled it a "claim". Again, that's Snit >>> territory, you *really* wanna go there? >> >> You deem me guilty of "blaming the reader", whatever that means... > > Well, you do it all the time, but here, I'm talking with Hugh. > (you don't have that identity thing going again, do you? ;) > >> but you offer no quote of my doing > > People have quoted you often, me included... you dishonestly deny, > even to the point of denying your own admissions. Thats a real problem, > for you ;) > >> as you deem me guilty of, no less any >> sign of legal adjudication on the subject. > > LOL! You're confused... I just reiterated that the 'jury' in your case is usenet. > What did you say to the police when they confronted you about your harassment? What did you say to your family when they asked you about your obsession? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 15:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pjaopq$t9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459443 |
On 2018-07-25 20:05:16 +0000, Snit said: > On 7/25/18 1:00 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:26 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>> On 7/25/18 10:36 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> ... >>>> Irrelevant. You just alluded to the idea that a "presumption of innocence" >>>> is not the default. You've now been corrected on that. >>>> >>>> FWIW, I *am* advocating for a "presumption of innocence" as the default, and, >>>> for future reference, it's nice to see those in the group who apparently oppose >>>> it do so openly (which, at present, consists of you and Snit... should >>>> be a clue). >>> >>> Ah, so you do not think I am guilty of the things you accuse me of... >>> and that I should be presumed innocent. >> >> When the facts prove you aren't innocent, such as in your case, presumption >> no longer applies. For examples, I proved that you admitted you've forged me >> as far back as the early 2000s. You denied it. I proved that you admitted to >> being 'sigmond' (several admission, in fact), and you still denied it. You even >> deny your own admissions so your word is disqualified. >> >>> Good. And you think Bill Clinton >>> should be presumed innocent of the things he was tried for and NOT found >>> guilty of. >> >> Clinton plead out. He also admitted his guilt, which was part of his plea... >> as I've told you before. >> >>> Carroll flip flops in 3... 2... 1... >> >> Translation: Snit know the facts support me. >> >>>> Given those in question, I doubt there'll be a problem. >>>> >>>> Bottom line: >>>> RonB said what he "thinks" about "collusion", those things are the context of >>>> what you responded to. If you didn't mean to convey what you did convey, you >>>> should have written more clearly. Now, you should recognize you didn't do so >>>> and man up. You're pulling a Snit by blaming the reader. But far worse, >>>> you took >>>> a 'thought' RonB voiced and dishonestly labeled it a "claim". Again, >>>> that's Snit >>>> territory, you *really* wanna go there? >>> >>> You deem me guilty of "blaming the reader", whatever that means... >> >> Well, you do it all the time, but here, I'm talking with Hugh. >> (you don't have that identity thing going again, do you? ;) >> >>> but you offer no quote of my doing >> >> People have quoted you often, me included... you dishonestly deny, >> even to the point of denying your own admissions. Thats a real problem, >> for you ;) >> >>> as you deem me guilty of, no less any >>> sign of legal adjudication on the subject. >> >> LOL! You're confused... I just reiterated that the 'jury' in your case >> is usenet. >> > > > What did you say to the police when they confronted you about your > harassment? What did you say to your family when they asked you about > your obsession? Why don't you finish the rest of today's 'prescriptions' and tell tell everyone? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frs7laFcn1nU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459470 |
On 7/25/18 2:07 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >> What did you say to the police when they confronted you about your >> harassment? What did you say to your family when they asked you about >> your obsession? > > Why don't you finish the rest of today's 'prescriptions' and tell tell > everyone? ;) I have few details of the discussion the police had with you. Heck, until you shared that it was a face-to-face discussion I did not know it was. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 15:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pjaphi$2te$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459475 |
On 2018-07-25 21:16:26 +0000, Snit said: > On 7/25/18 2:07 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>> What did you say to the police when they confronted you about your >>> harassment? What did you say to your family when they asked you about >>> your obsession? >> >> Why don't you finish the rest of today's 'prescriptions' and tell tell >> everyone? ;) > > I have few details of the discussion the police had with you. Heck, > until you shared that it was a face-to-face discussion I did not know > it was. In other words, this stuff is *really* potent (your organs won't handle it forver, ya know).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frs9vfFd80rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459480 |
On 7/25/18 2:19 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-07-25 21:16:26 +0000, Snit said: > >> On 7/25/18 2:07 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >> >>>> What did you say to the police when they confronted you about your >>>> harassment? What did you say to your family when they asked you >>>> about your obsession? >>> >>> Why don't you finish the rest of today's 'prescriptions' and tell >>> tell everyone? ;) >> >> I have few details of the discussion the police had with you. Heck, >> until you shared that it was a face-to-face discussion I did not know >> it was. > > In other words, this stuff is *really* potent (your organs won't handle > it forver, ya know). The police come to talk to you about your harassment and you move the topic to your delusions about me. So very, very Carroll of you. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <428b9196-c68a-4ed8-832e-71232e7959c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459397 |
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: > > > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one > > > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. > > > > > > > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. > > > > > > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and > > > complete bullshit." > > > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." > > > > > > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're > > > confalting things. > > > > Incorrect > > So cite this collusion law, ... Malicious context change by how "Steve" edited (note how there's no punctuation) to deliberately try to alter the statement. The complete statement was: "Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration with the Russians. As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically viewing the entire realm of criminal activities." With this deliberate & dishonest act, Steve has forfeited. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frsac1Fd80rU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459493 |
On 7/25/18 2:50 PM, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one >>>>>>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. >>>>> >>>>> When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. >>>> >>>> RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and >>>> complete bullshit." >>>> You: "The investigation is still very, very early." >>>> >>>> There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're >>>> confalting things. >>> >>> Incorrect >> >> So cite this collusion law, ... > > Malicious context change by how "Steve" edited (note how there's > no punctuation) to deliberately try to alter the statement. > The complete statement was: > > "Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only > looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration > with the Russians. Thank you. For the causal reader who is not going to dig back through threads to find where Carroll is twisting things and otherwise being dishonest he can be tricky to see through. > As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. > > And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the > last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically > viewing the entire realm of criminal activities." > > With this deliberate & dishonest act, Steve has forfeited. I am sure he will honorably admit to his games and not blame you at all. LOL! Hey, at least for a change he is blaming you for his games and not me. Well, not me much. He has also done that some in response to YOUR comments. Oy! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 18:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <frsb3aFdg5bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459493 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:23 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: >>> > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one >>> > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. >>> > > >>> > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. >>> > >>> > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and >>> > complete bullshit." >>> > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." >>> > >>> > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're >>> > confalting things. >>> >>> Incorrect >> >> So cite this collusion law, ... > > Malicious context change by how "Steve" edited (note how there's > no punctuation) to deliberately try to alter the statement. > The complete statement was: > > "Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only > looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration > with the Russians. > > As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. > > And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the > last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically > viewing the entire realm of criminal activities." > > With this deliberate & dishonest act, Steve has forfeited. > > > -hh How many indictments for Russian COLLUSION have been filed? Seems Muller is indicting people on a wide scope of charges other than the primary focus for the special counsel. And in no special order, as an independent who votes his wallet, so what are you doing for my back pocket: 1. Personally, I think Trump is an idiot who is way out of his league when it comes to politics. He is a savvy businessman but in no way a politician. But in certain respects that is why he got elected. However his "good points" are also combined with his idiocy. So while he may be correct about NATO countries paying their fair share instead of relying on the US tits he screws himself by making derogatory comments about Montenegro. 2. I do not believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Interested in dirt on Hillary? Sure. Nothing new in politics and both sides did and continue to do it. 3. I believe the Russians, Putin if you will, has some real nasty dirt on Trump. There is probably some truth in hookers peeing on him and Trump not being smart enough to assume the hotel was bugged fell into the trap. Russian hookers have a reputation for doing "stuff" the other hookers wouldn't dream of doing. Trump got sucked in, literally. 4. The MSM is out of control. For 8 years they kissed Obama's ass and they wrongly assumed Hillary would take over the reigns for another 8 years of liberal policies. It didn't happen. They need to get over it. It's disgusting the way they attack Trump 24x7 and yet gave Obama a pass on just about every gaff he made. How about Obama's red line in the sand? Barely a mention when Putin laughed at him. How about when that journalist got beheaded on TV. Obama was playing golf, paused for 2 minutes, made some canned comments and then went back to his golf game. The press said nothing. It goes on and on. 5. That being said, Trump scares me. Having a vindictive (can you say Nixon?) narcissistic president is a dangerous thing. I thought he would surround himself with "smart people", same thing I thought of Obama, but it never happened with either of them although Obama has a silver tongue and knows how to act presidential. The problem is he takes the high road and does nothing. North Korea is an example. At least Trump is trying even if he fails. He does needs to shut up and start acting presidential because the good things he is doing are over shadowed by his stupid, big mouth. 6, As for the democrats, tell me what they have done for the blacks, underclass and so forth? Pretty much lip service and nothing more. Race relations under Obama took a major turn back to the 1960's. You'll never hear the MSM talk about that. Oh and fossils like Mitch McConnell are a major part of the problem. Career Republicans on the take are another reason people don't trust the government. Oh well, I've ranted enough for today. We need a viable 3rd party.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjavb0$3p1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #459506 |
On 2018-07-25, GasPipe <vinnythegaspipe@motz.org> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:50:23 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:32:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> > On 2018-07-24 21:44:09 +0000, -hh said: >>>> > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> > >> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:29:28 PM UTC-6, -hh wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> The investigation is still very, very early.>> Which is why no one >>>> > >>> should be alleging unquestionable guilt. >>>> > > >>>> > > When the party has already plead guilty ... that's pretty unquestionable. >>>> > >>>> > RonB: "I think the Russian collusion bullshit is just that, total and >>>> > complete bullshit." >>>> > You: "The investigation is still very, very early." >>>> > >>>> > There is no charge of "collusion" to "plead guilty" to. You're >>>> > confalting things. >>>> >>>> Incorrect >>> >>> So cite this collusion law, ... >> >> Malicious context change by how "Steve" edited (note how there's >> no punctuation) to deliberately try to alter the statement. >> The complete statement was: >> >> "Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only >> looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration >> with the Russians. >> >> As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. >> >> And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the >> last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically >> viewing the entire realm of criminal activities." >> >> With this deliberate & dishonest act, Steve has forfeited. >> >> >> -hh > > How many indictments for Russian COLLUSION have been filed? > Seems Muller is indicting people on a wide scope of charges other than the > primary focus for the special counsel. That's exactly what's he's doing. This is how this piece of shit Mueller operates. He indicts people on side-issues, trumped up charges or whatever it takes, then tries to get those indicted to lie an/or turn a dime on his main targets. Mueller truly is a lying piece of shit. > And in no special order, as an independent who votes his wallet, so what > are you doing for my back pocket: > > 1. Personally, I think Trump is an idiot who is way out of his league when > it comes to politics. He is a savvy businessman but in no way a politician. > But in certain respects that is why he got elected. However his "good > points" are also combined with his idiocy. So while he may be correct about > NATO countries paying their fair share instead of relying on the US tits he > screws himself by making derogatory comments about Montenegro. Trump is a loud-mouthed lout. This whole thing of trying to govern via Twitter is getting really, REALLY old. Grow up, Trump. Actually ... grow up everybody. This yelling bullshit on talk shows and "news" broadcasts is also getting really, REALLY old. (Especially idiot rags like HuffPuff and Newsweek and associated Yahoo click bait sites.) It's like EVERYONE in politics is digressing to the level of Junior High dropouts. > 2. I do not believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Interested in dirt on > Hillary? Sure. Nothing new in politics and both sides did and continue to > do it. Zero evidence of Trump (or anyone) colluding with Russia to influence the elections. Tons of accusations. Zero evidence. > 3. I believe the Russians, Putin if you will, has some real nasty dirt on > Trump. There is probably some truth in hookers peeing on him and Trump not > being smart enough to assume the hotel was bugged fell into the trap. > Russian hookers have a reputation for doing "stuff" the other hookers > wouldn't dream of doing. Trump got sucked in, literally. I don't buy into to that at all. That whole report was created at the behest of the DNC and other Trump opponents. The "investigator" (so to speak) produced what they wanted. 90% made up bullshit. > 4. The MSM is out of control. For 8 years they kissed Obama's ass and they > wrongly assumed Hillary would take over the reigns for another 8 years of > liberal policies. It didn't happen. They need to get over it. > It's disgusting the way they attack Trump 24x7 and yet gave Obama a pass on > just about every gaff he made. How about Obama's red line in the sand? > Barely a mention when Putin laughed at him. How about when that journalist > got beheaded on TV. Obama was playing golf, paused for 2 minutes, made some > canned comments and then went back to his golf game. The press said > nothing. > It goes on and on. The main stream media is a joke. It appears to be run by Junior High School dropouts now. > 5. That being said, Trump scares me. Having a vindictive (can you say > Nixon?) narcissistic president is a dangerous thing. I thought he would > surround himself with "smart people", same thing I thought of Obama, but it > never happened with either of them although Obama has a silver tongue and > knows how to act presidential. The problem is he takes the high road and > does nothing. North Korea is an example. At least Trump is trying even if > he fails. > He does needs to shut up and start acting presidential because the good > things he is doing are over shadowed by his stupid, big mouth. Trump doesn't scare me. He doesn't run anything. He shoots off his mouth and the Deep State does what they want anyhow. It's a dog and pony show. > 6, As for the democrats, tell me what they have done for the blacks, > underclass and so forth? > Pretty much lip service and nothing more. > Race relations under Obama took a major turn back to the 1960's. You'll > never hear the MSM talk about that. > Oh and fossils like Mitch McConnell are a major part of the problem. Career > Republicans on the take are another reason people don't trust the > government. > Oh well, I've ranted enough for today. > We need a viable 3rd party. Exactly right on the main stream media and the Democrats lack of REAL support for the minorities. As for a viable 3rd Party, that's not going to happen. The last candidate that even came close to challenging the two wings of the DemoPub Party was Buchanan and they cheated him out of votes all over the country. The only way the American people are going to regain control of their country again is through another revolution – and that's not going to happen because it would get in the way of watching the Super Bowl and drinking beer. -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-25 16:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <frsg3jFegntU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #459515 |
On 7/25/18 3:58 PM, RonB wrote: ... >>> Malicious context change by how "Steve" edited (note how there's >>> no punctuation) to deliberately try to alter the statement. >>> The complete statement was: >>> >>> "Incorrect, because the investigation's scope is not narrowly only >>> looking for criminal collusion of the current Administration >>> with the Russians. >>> >>> As such, you're trying to move the goalposts to where it suits you. >>> >>> And similarly, so too is RonB: he's trying to only look at the >>> last possible domino that could fall, as opposed to holistically >>> viewing the entire realm of criminal activities." >>> >>> With this deliberate & dishonest act, Steve has forfeited. >>> >>> >>> -hh >> >> How many indictments for Russian COLLUSION have been filed? >> Seems Muller is indicting people on a wide scope of charges other than the >> primary focus for the special counsel. > > That's exactly what's he's doing. This is how this piece of shit Mueller > operates. He indicts people on side-issues, trumped up charges or whatever > it takes, then tries to get those indicted to lie an/or turn a dime on his > main targets. Mueller truly is a lying piece of shit. Can you quote some of these lies? Keep in mind, there is a LOT of evidence of connections between Trump associates and Russian officials (not all of which has been shown to be inappropriate, but much of which has): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials> OR <https://goo.gl/famVwd> >> And in no special order, as an independent who votes his wallet, so what >> are you doing for my back pocket: >> >> 1. Personally, I think Trump is an idiot who is way out of his league when >> it comes to politics. Of course he is. >> He is a savvy businessman but in no way a politician. He is not even a savvy businessman. He is a good troll and scam artist, but that is not the same thing. And even with that, he would be wealthier if he had put the money he was given into the stock market and not done anything else. >> But in certain respects that is why he got elected. However his "good >> points" are also combined with his idiocy. So while he may be correct about >> NATO countries paying their fair share instead of relying on the US tits he >> screws himself by making derogatory comments about Montenegro. > > Trump is a loud-mouthed lout. This whole thing of trying to govern via > Twitter is getting really, REALLY old. Grow up, Trump. Actually ... grow up > everybody. This yelling bullshit on talk shows and "news" broadcasts is also > getting really, REALLY old. (Especially idiot rags like HuffPuff and > Newsweek and associated Yahoo click bait sites.) It's like EVERYONE in > politics is digressing to the level of Junior High dropouts. Trump takes it to an extreme in this area. >> 2. I do not believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Interested in dirt on >> Hillary? Sure. Nothing new in politics and both sides did and continue to >> do it. > > Zero evidence of Trump (or anyone) colluding with Russia to influence the > elections. Tons of accusations. Zero evidence. There is evidence, but I agree there is no smoking gun... or at least none I have seen. And I agree the story is blown out of proportion. >> 3. I believe the Russians, Putin if you will, has some real nasty dirt on >> Trump. There is probably some truth in hookers peeing on him and Trump not >> being smart enough to assume the hotel was bugged fell into the trap. >> Russian hookers have a reputation for doing "stuff" the other hookers >> wouldn't dream of doing. Trump got sucked in, literally. > > I don't buy into to that at all. That whole report was created at the behest > of the DNC and other Trump opponents. The "investigator" (so to speak) > produced what they wanted. 90% made up bullshit. There has to be some reason Trump bends over to the will of Putin pretty much every chance he has. >> 4. The MSM is out of control. For 8 years they kissed Obama's ass and they >> wrongly assumed Hillary would take over the reigns for another 8 years of >> liberal policies. They entertained and gave voice to the morons who claimed Obama was not an American (because, of course, blacks are not "real" Americans or whatever), that Kenya is now in Hawaii, that he is a Muslim, etc. Obama just did not cry about it the way Trump does. >> It didn't happen. They need to get over it. >> It's disgusting the way they attack Trump 24x7 and yet gave Obama a pass on >> just about every gaff he made. They did not do so with Obama and they SHOULD be reporting on Trump's non-stop idiocy. >> How about Obama's red line in the sand? >> Barely a mention when Putin laughed at him. How about when that journalist >> got beheaded on TV. Obama was playing golf, paused for 2 minutes, made some >> canned comments and then went back to his golf game. The press said >> nothing. >> It goes on and on. > > The main stream media is a joke. It appears to be run by Junior High School > dropouts now. It is more of an entertainment show than news. That I will agree with. >> 5. That being said, Trump scares me. Having a vindictive (can you say >> Nixon?) narcissistic president is a dangerous thing. I thought he would >> surround himself with "smart people", same thing I thought of Obama, but it >> never happened with either of them although Obama has a silver tongue and >> knows how to act presidential. The problem is he takes the high road and >> does nothing. North Korea is an example. At least Trump is trying even if >> he fails. Trump "tried" by giving in to N. Korea. >> He does needs to shut up and start acting presidential because the good >> things he is doing are over shadowed by his stupid, big mouth. He is unable to. > Trump doesn't scare me. He doesn't run anything. He shoots off his mouth and > the Deep State does what they want anyhow. It's a dog and pony show. The "Deep State". Oy. And, yes, the president has power. >> 6, As for the democrats, tell me what they have done for the blacks, >> underclass and so forth? >> Pretty much lip service and nothing more. >> Race relations under Obama took a major turn back to the 1960's. You'll >> never hear the MSM talk about that. You often hear of how the bigots attacked him and how they are lashing out in fear. THAT is the "major turn" you do not hear. What is NOT talked about by the media is how the rich are getting richer off the backs of others. But given how right wing the media is you would not expect to hear that. >> Oh and fossils like Mitch McConnell are a major part of the problem. Career >> Republicans on the take are another reason people don't trust the >> government. >> Oh well, I've ranted enough for today. >> We need a viable 3rd party. > > Exactly right on the main stream media and the Democrats lack of REAL > support for the minorities. The progressive side of the Democrat party backs equal rights... which helps minorities. The corporate side gives lip service to it. > As for a viable 3rd Party, that's not going to > happen. The last candidate that even came close to challenging the two wings > of the DemoPub Party was Buchanan and they cheated him out of votes all over > the country. Ross Perot. > The only way the American people are going to regain control of their > country again is through another revolution – and that's not going to happen > because it would get in the way of watching the Super Bowl and drinking > beer. Major campaign finance reform. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web